Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Jim O’Rourke

Eligible in 1899.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 22, 2006 at 05:40 PM | 14 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 22, 2006 at 05:48 PM (#1981954)
Mike Webber found this interesting tidbit on Orator Jim today:

O'Rourke's home to be demolished?
   2. Paul Wendt Posted: August 05, 2008 at 07:26 PM (#2891198)
Elsewhere I have suggested that Jim O'Rourke was not a "leftfielder". It isn't worth arguing about with people like thirdbaseman Deacon White around.

career fielding games, full seasons equivalent
("baseball ages" of primary and secondary seasons)

6.38 LF (ages 32-33, 37-38, 40-42)
5.47 CF (ages 24-27, 31, 34-35)
2.60 1B (age 23; also 22, 28-29, 33, 42)
2.33 C (2d/3d catcher at ages 21-22, 32, 35-36, 3d/4th catcher always)
2.18 RF (the regular at ages 22, 28, 39 !)
1.65 3B (age 30; also 24 and 36)
0.95 SS (age 21; also 29)
0.055 P (six games at ages 32-33)
0.016 2B (two games at age 35)

13.96 outfield seasons, 1871-2006 rank #28

20.65 fielding seasons, 1871-2006 rank #3 (Anson 25.29, Rose 21.94, J.O'R, Cobb 19.31)

Full seasons by fielding position may not sum to 20.65, even up to rounding error. If not, the sum should be greater than 20.65 with the difference representing mid-game position changes, plus rounding error.
   3. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 05, 2008 at 08:16 PM (#2891388)
There is definitely a case for CF there. Especially if (as I assume) he hit better at ages 24-27, 31, 34-35 than 32-33, 37-38, 40-42).

I would have no problem moving him to the CF list, pending someone really diving into it.

Nice catch Paul.
   4. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: August 05, 2008 at 08:21 PM (#2891412)
Does he get any extra credit for Camoufleur or Eureka?
   5. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 05, 2008 at 08:22 PM (#2891425)
Oh and according to google maps, the house is still there, not sure how old the picture is. I've driven by it probably a hundred times, never realized it. Will look for it next time I'm in the area!
   6. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: August 05, 2008 at 08:28 PM (#2891449)
Bridgeport!!
   7. jyjjy Posted: August 05, 2008 at 08:32 PM (#2891480)
Does he get any extra credit for Camoufleur or Eureka?

I prefer Insignificance and the Halfway to a Threeway EP, and we can't forget about his work with Sonic Youth. He'll definitely get my vote.
   8. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 06, 2008 at 02:53 AM (#2892263)
I posted this on the LF, but just to clarify, I am leaning towards O'Rourke to CF. If anyone objects, speak up ASAP.
   9. mulder & scully Posted: August 06, 2008 at 06:07 AM (#2892409)
Comparison of Jim O'Rourke by WS and Position:

Columns are age, year, WS, WS adjusted to 154g (why to 154, b/c that's what I have in my spreadsheet)

CF:
24, 1875, 16 WS, 29 WS
25, 1876, 17 WS, 40 WS
26, 1877, 15 WS, 38.5 WS
27, 1878, 12 WS, 30.5 WS
31, 1882, 11 WS, 20 WS
34, 1885, 24 WS, 33 WS
35, 1886, 24 WS, 30 WS

Total: 119 WS, 221 WS

LF
32, 1883, 17 WS, 27 WS
33, 1884, 25 WS, 34.5 WS
37, 1888, 17 WS, 19 WS
38, 1889, 19 WS, 21.5 WS
40, 1891, 17 WS, 19 WS
41, 1892, 15 WS, 17 WS
42, 1893, 11 WS, 11 WS

Total: 121 WS, 149 ws

By value, CF in a landslide.
   10. Chris Cobb Posted: August 06, 2008 at 02:49 PM (#2892571)
I decided to check WARP on this as well. WARP is handy for this kind of a question because they break out fielding time and value by position, so using those data, I could, adjusting for season length, figure out the exact fielding value O'Rourke had at each position in each season, and then, by dividing his batting value evenly among his positional games, figure out a good estimate of his batting value at each position also. So that this estimate wouldn't necessarily be affected by WARP1's shifting FRAR system, I did it for WARP1 and WARP2.

Here are the totals for O'Rourke, accounting for all games played in LF and CF, with all play seasonally adjusted to 162-game seasons

LF 59.9 WAR1, 39.7 WARP2
CF 77.6 WAR1, 44.5 WARP2

WARP2 has it much closer than WARP1, but this study confirms that O'Rourke had more value at CF than at LF (or any other position, since his playing time at all of the others was much less).

Is it worth doing similar checks on Browning and Stovey?
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 07, 2008 at 12:13 AM (#2893378)
I actually had O'Rourke easily better in CF than in LF in my analysis. Like Dick Allen, I probably subconsciously slotted him as a left fielder because of where he was ranked in the TNBJHBA.

I'll fix his plaque to show that he was really a center fielder. I'll also remove his name from the left fielder list on the discussion thread.

Is it worth doing similar checks on Browning and Stovey?


I have Stovey as clearly a left fielder, but Browning? In my analysis, I had the Gladiator pegged as a left fielder, not a center fielder. Guess where he ranked in the TNBJHBA? :-)

If you don't mind doing it, Chris, a check (especially for Browning) wouldn't hurt. Thanks in advance!
   12. Chris Cobb Posted: August 07, 2008 at 02:01 AM (#2893648)
I have Stovey as clearly a left fielder, but Browning?

Browning checks out as having most value in CF:

LF 36.5 WARP1, 23.8 WARP2
CF 51.3 WARP1, 28.2 WARP2

It's a lot closer in WARP2 b/c almost all of Browning CF play was in the AA, and the AA discount scales those years back quite a bit.

Browning does have more adj. games in CF, so his value corresponds to his playing time, unlike the tricky O'Rourke.
   13. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 07, 2008 at 04:09 AM (#2893720)
Thanks guys!
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 07, 2008 at 11:57 AM (#2893815)
Browning does have more adj. games in CF, so his value corresponds to his playing time, unlike the tricky O'Rourke.


Looks like we'll keep Browning where he is then. Thanks!

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2407 seconds
68 querie(s) executed